The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of natural justice in administrative actions, specifically the requirement that the authority deciding a case must hear the arguments before making a decision.

PA. Mohammed, J.

"The one who decides must hear". This is a sacred rule forming part of principles of natural justice. The aptness of this percept to the present context requires trenchant consideration. The decision in Union of India v. Andrew (1996 (1) KLT 133) handed down by the Division Bench forming one of us a party anatomized the above concept with some elaborateness. What we are impelled here is to have a closer outlook on it with reference to a facet which we call seeming justice'. It is a cardinal principle of our judicial system that a case should be decided by the authority hearing the arguments and that a successor cannot decide a case without hearing the arguments afresh on the ground that arguments have already been advanced before his predecessor who left the case without deciding it himself," so said by the Division Bench in Andrew's case (supra).

2. Ext. P5 order dated 28.8.1997 passed by the Additional Secretary (Sri. K. Rajendran) has been challenged by the appellant in the Writ Petition wherefrom the present. Writ Appeal arose. By the said order, the Government found that the appellant was personally liable for the loss of Rs. 48.602/- sustained by it and hence it ordered to recover the said sum from the DCRG payable to him, on retirement. The

impugned order was passed by the Government in compliance of the direction of this Court in O.P.No. 1500 of 1997 directing to finaliss the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant within the period stipulated. The learned Single Judge however dismissed the Original Petition and hence the present Writ Appeal.

3. While attacking Ext. P5, the appellant at the outset contends that Ext. P5 order is hit by the rule 'the one who decides must hear'. His case is that he was heard on 21.7.1997 by the Special Secretary to Government Sri. Sajan Peter, but Ext. P5 order was passed by the Additional Secretary Sri. K. Rajendran. He pointed out that there was no application of the mind by the authority who passed the impugned order. Therefore, the counsel pleaded that the appellant ought to have been heard by Sri. K. Rajendran before Ext. P5 order was passed and that was a requirement in the observance of the principles of natural justice.

4. On the other hand, respondent contended that Sri. Sajan Peter, Special Secretary heard the appellant on 21.7.1997 and findings on the questions were arrived at by himself after examining the submissions at the time of the hearing. It is further disclosed in the additional counter affidavit that Sri. Sajan Peter forwarded the file to the Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture and the Minister approved the same on 22.8.1997. It was thereafter Additional Secretary Sri. K. Rajendran issued the impugned order. It was also pleaded that the said procedure could not said to be unauthorised in view of Rr.11 and 12 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala.

5. Let us now examine as to how far there is application of the mind in the process of determination involved in Ext. P5. When we say application of the mind it is meant to involve subjective process of analysis or appreciation. The person who decides must apply his mind in which event every material even the comportment of the person who has been heard would be oscillating afresh in the mind. In such backdrop the decision making process would be serene and not shilly-shallying for the person who heard the matter. It would also ensure unimpaired contentment for the person who has been heard that his case has been properly analysed and understood. Can we cull such results from Ext. P5? What would appear from Ext. P5 is that the decision that the appellant was responsible for dereliction of duty and negligence which ultimately led to the loss to Government was taken by Additional Secretary Sri. K. Rajendran. Though the said order reveals that the appellant was heard on 21.7.1997 it did not specifically say by whom the hearing was made. In the normal course, we would presume that he was